DiBella v. Pennino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiBella v. Pennino

17 A.D.3d 625, 792 N.Y.S.2d 905

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 625 (DiBella v. Pennino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DiBella v. Pennino, 17 A.D.3d 625, 792 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages based on intentional assault, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of the same court entered May 19, 2003, made after an inquest, upon an order of the same court dated February 24, 2003, granting the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to strike his answer upon his default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[626]*626To vacate his default in opposing the plaintiffs motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 596 [2004]; Hirsch v Monroe Bus Corp., 13 AD3d 486 [2004]). The defendant failed to present a reasonable excuse for his failure to oppose the plaintiffs motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages based on intentional assault, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated December 9, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate a prior judgment of the same court entered May 19, 2003, made after an inquest, upon an order of the same court dated February 24, 2003, granting the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to strike his answer upon his default in opposing the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[626]*626To vacate his default in opposing the plaintiffs motion, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 596 [2004]; Hirsch v Monroe Bus Corp., 13 AD3d 486 [2004]). The defendant failed to present a reasonable excuse for his failure to oppose the plaintiffs motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his default. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 625, 792 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dibella-v-pennino-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack